Posted on 01/06/2020 4:18:41 AM PST by Kaslin
I’m dubious. My big-time lib SIL volunteers there. She a scientist. Take away what you want from that.
Hope we win.
The museum was staging an exhibition on American political art. Before rendering a judgment, one would need to know a bit about the complete exhibition. What period did it cover? What genres were included? Was the overall selection reasonably balanced in terms of political orientation? How did the work in question fit visually and thematically with the rest? If the museum’s selection was hopelessly biased, there is room for complaint. But the author hasn’t made that case. He is simply complaining that his particular piece wasn’t selected.
I am uncertain of the ability of employees at the Smithsonian to do anything to contribute to Free Speech rights or any other rights.
Their handling of the Enola Gay back in 1995 told me all I needed to know about how they would handle anything.
So he’s basically saying that the Constitution requires that the Smithsonian has to display his painting. Lol.
If he wins, and the fiduciary trustees CAN’T decide which art is acceptable, then 100% of all art submitted must be displayed. Goofy.
Despite the good concept, the painting itself isn’t that good (IMHO).
anyone read The Smithsonian Magazine lately? I was a 30+ year subscriber. After 2016, the Magazine went left of the NY Times. It is has become an unreadable leftist rag.
I have not paid for the Smithsonian for over 2 years, but it shows up in my mailbox every month. It goes directly into the trash.
It’s stupid to think that the Smithsonian cannot reject a submission.
But since the Smithsonian is creating exhibits that carry credibility based on being managed by the govt (tax dollars), it’s appropriate to ask who is in control of the narrative.
The Smithsonian started going down hill in the early 1980s.
The Natural History museum had a sabre-toothed tiger in the entrance, posed in attack-mode, and was very popular with visitors mugging up with it for pictures.
Some wimpy curator thought it was “disrespectful” to the cat, so it was either removed or made inaccessible for posing with it.
From the article: Judge Trevor McFadden, from the District Court, declared that the actions of Kim Sajet, the Director of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, were ‘insulting, partisan and odious’,
I think they can reject anything with “good” reason but not for political bias. (the question becomes, what is “good reason”?)
It’s as corrupt as the FBI, DOJ, IRS, ATF, SCOTUS, CONGRESS, CIA, NSA, IRS, DNC.
Which means they can reject anything they want, until (perhaps) someone complains.
Who gets to decide who is sane enough to own firearms?
Any progressive can tell you who should be making the decisions - it's obvious, right?
The Smithsonian Inst. is NOT a protecter of free speech; nor a bastion for truth. Our nation is spotted all over the eastern area with evidences of the giants who once roamed the earth, a la Genesis chapter 6. In the early days of westward expansion, every time a new site with evidence of giant activity was found, Smithsonian swooped in, gathered up all relics, etc., and denied they ever existed. Smithsonian is anti-Bible, anti-Creation, pro-evolution, and destroys any evidence that might endanger the satanist line. Google NEPHALIM.
I stopped being a member and donor years ago when it became apparent that they had been captured by the left.
Funny that they are afraid of offending people yet quote Bill Cosby on the wall above the quilt exhibit in the article photo.
The remedy to make him whole has already been done as part of the DOJ response, a review of his work on the merits, not dismissal based upon bias. He's even got the court outright declaring the bias. He wants an additional bite of the apple to include individual/institutional penalties, and I don't see how he gets there as he never availed himself of all the other methods of seeking the review which was denied.
I'm sorry he's wasted years of his life working on this; I take issue that his piece is of any significance, never seen it before today, never heard of it, while that's not entirely germane, it sure would have helped his case in my eyes. The campaign obviously takes little notice of it; if they wanted to push the piece being included they would have provided legal help.
At the end of the day, the DOJ’s rather exhaustive response makes the most explicit point; due to the piece's size in relation to the exhibition and the other submissions, it would have altered the impression of the significance of the piece. I'm not sure if it was in the appellate reply or the original DOJ response where it was suggested a different format/size could have been submitted, and ultimately, the artist never provided how the huge submission would be delivered for the exhibition with the supposition being that the partner gallery would ‘handle it.’
I don't even see anything in the original trial court's finding that's outlandish; the remedy that the plaintiff sought is impossible without a time machine, is a matter of discretion for the curators, and the original artwork as submitted in a billboard type format is excessive. He never showed how his piece was significant or impacting on the campaign which might overrule some of the other considerations.
He did get the court to call the rejection due to bias, but failed to make any prayers for relief the court could possibly accede to.
The really weird part is I can still see this drift into the court's docket if for no other reason than to settle the question as to the Smithsonian's status. But pretty much everything else is going to earn a denial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.